26. Broadly
one can describe religion which focuses on the Father as autocratic theocracy,
religion which focuses on the Mother (Virgin Mary) as bureaucratic theocracy,
religion which focuses on the Son (Christ) as democratic theocracy, and
religion which focuses on the Holy Spirit as theocratic theocracy, or supertheocracy.
There is a sense in which, in Christendom, Eastern Orthodoxy is the form
of Christianity most Father orientated, and hence patriarchal and
fundamentalist, corresponding to an autocratic theocracy. Doubtless this owes something to the fact
that the Orthodox East is closer, in geographical terms, to the Islamic East and
thus to theocratic fundamentalism, the fundamentalism which is less an
autocratic theocracy than a theocratic autocracy (super-autocracy), and
therefore rooted in a stellar alpha which effectively precludes the possibility
of theocratic evolution through the world ... from a relatively fundamentalist
base (in the Father) to an absolutely transcendentalist culmination (in the
Holy Spirit), via the outer darkness of the Mother and the inner darkness of
the Son. Now if Eastern Orthodoxy may
fundamentally be described as an autocratic theocracy, then it must follow that
Roman Catholicism, with its focus on the Blessed Virgin, is a bureaucratic
theocracy, a theocracy less of the outer light than of the outer darkness,
while Protestantism, the focus of which is largely if not purely Christic, is a democratic theocracy, Christ corresponding
to an inner darkness (of the intellect) in relation to the outer darkness (of
the will), and hence to his Blessed Mother.
That of course leads to the possibility of a theocratic theocracy, a supertheocracy, and not simply in the sense of
Pentecostalism (which is the form of nonconformist Christianity most orientated
towards the Holy Ghost) but in the more radical and extreme terms of Social
Transcendentalism, which would transcend the Church altogether, and thus
effectively the Holy Ghost, as pure spirit was extended beyond Christianity in
terms of a universal religion whose institutional focus was the Centre, and the
(true) inner light of which contrasted absolutely with the (false) inner light
of oriental fundamentalism, its alpha antithesis on the same, or idealistic,
spectrum. For make no mistake: Islamic
fundamentalism does not correspond to the outer light in the sense that the Father
and thus, by implication, Eastern Orthodoxy does. Rooted in Allah, it is, like Judaism, a
religion of the inner light, but its inner light, derived from the central star
of the Galaxy, is only apparently inner. For while the central star has the appearance
of being inner in relation to such peripheral, revolving stars as the sun, its noumenal essence is still in proton-proton reactions (if wavicle rather than particle), and hence it pertains to a noumenal selflessness which is inherently centrifugal. Thus it is a sad, negative, illusory spirit,
a spirit which, from the standpoint of transcendentalism, can only appear false
and even immoral when compared or, rather, contrasted to the joyful, positive,
truthful essence of true spirit, the noumenal essence
of which would be in electron-electron attractions of a wavicle
purism such as emerges from a meditative precondition. Thus the coming of Transcendentalism
establishes a polar antithesis with Fundamentalism, the alpha 'inner light' of
which can only appear in a bogus light in relation to its own omega inner
light, the ultimate and true inner light of a superconscious
purism. Should Islamic Fundamentalism
resist the allure of Social Transcendentalism, reacting against supertheocracy on the basis of super-autocratic
intransigence, then I fear that there may be no alternative for Social
Transcendentalism but to enter into a 'Holy War' with it, as the true inner
light strives for globalization at the expense, if necessary, of the false
inner light, and in order that all men, whatever their background, may be freed
from the tyranny of supernatural determinism, in the interests of the ultimate
spiritual salvation of self-realization in a universal brotherhood which will
bring the 'Kingdom of Heaven' truly to pass.
27. If
proletarian autocratic sex is masturbatory and/or voyeuristic in relation to
porno films, then proletarian democratic sex may broadly be divided into
anti-democratic left-wing sexuality in cunnilingus (which is
quasi-voyeuristic), a democratic centrist sexuality in male-dominated heterosexuality, and pro-theocratic right-wing sexuality in
homosexuality. Contrasted to which we
shall find that proletarian bureaucratic sex, which is akin to the Virgin under
Christ (or feminism under masculinism), is likewise
divisible into an anti-democratic left-wing sexuality in lesbianism, a
bureaucratic centrist sexuality in female-dominated heterosexuality, and a
pro-theocratic right-wing sexuality in fellatio (which is
quasi-voyeuristic). Anti-democratic bureaucratic
sex reacts against heterosexuality in lesbianism, no less than pro-theocratic
bureaucratic sex transcends it (relatively) towards theocratic sex (or computer
sex voyeurism). Anti-democratic
democratic sex reacts against heterosexuality in cunnilingus, no less than
pro-theocratic democratic sex transcends it towards theocratic sex. The anti-democratic, whether in lesbianism
beneath or cunnilingus above, is left wing, whereas the pro-theocratic, whether
in fellatio beneath or homosexuality above, is right wing, the difference
between the reactive and the attractive, protons and electrons, particles and wavicles. Hence
whereas lesbianism is left-wing bureaucratic sex, homosexuality is right-wing
democratic sex. And whereas cunnilingus
is left-wing democratic sex, fellatio is right-wing bureaucratic sex. Heterosexuality, whether male-dominated (and
democratic) or female-dominated (and bureaucratic) can only be centrist, as
befitting a liberal disposition. This is
not to say that each democratic and/or bureaucratic option, corresponding to
political positions, cannot be further subdivided into tripartite alternatives,
as in regard, for example, to left- and right-wing heterosexual alternatives
either side of a centrist middle ground.
Doubtless they can, and one would be justified, I believe, in contending
that democratic heterosexuality might also embrace rear-entry male-dominated
coitus on its left wing and anal intercourse on its right wing. But whatever subdivision one may choose to
entertain, the fact is that in democratic sex the male is dominant, whereas in
bureaucratic sex it is the female who calls the tune, and doubtless in
conformity with feminist principles.
Cunnilingus is no less a male-dominated form of oral sex than fellatio
is its female-dominated form. The
distinction, in this respect, between homosexuality and lesbianism is too
obvious to warrant further comment here, but the distinction between male- and
female-dominated heterosexuality, the male on top in the former case and the
female on top in the latter, is rather more subtle, and does indeed conform, so
I contend, to a democratic/bureaucratic distinction. Now I can conceive of an age or a society
which, being more bureaucratic than democratic, would encourage female-dominated
intercourse, and I have no doubt that feminists would, or should, be especially
partial to asserting themselves over men (though not necessarily completely at
the male's expense). Hence I would
describe relationships in which female-dominated intercourse were the norm as
heterosexually bureaucratic, in contrast both to the heterosexually democratic
nature of male-dominated intercourse and to the possibility of some kind of
bureaucratic/democratic balance in between the two extremes. Personally, I would regard bureaucratic
sexuality, of whatever description, as morally less desirable than democratic
sexuality, since corresponding to the ascendancy of the outer darkness rather
than of the inner darkness, and therefore implicitly anterior to the
latter. As proletarian society evolves,
so it passes from an autocratic alpha to a bureaucratic world, from which we
evolve to a democratic purgatory ... before any prospect, through inner light,
of a theocratic omega begins to dawn on our spiritual horizon. As a reaction against autocratic male domination,
feminism is perfectly inevitable. But it
can, and should, be left behind by the 'masculinism'
of democratic freedom. Sexual
bureaucracy can only be irrelevant to a fully democratic age, as irrelevant as
feminism itself, and therefore should be transcended by sexual democracy and
its masculine concomitance, a means, if nothing else, to theocratic ends.... As
to the distinction between proletarian and bourgeois sex, which was rather
implicit at the beginning of this entry, I am now more than ever convinced that
it boils down to a sort of monoracial/multiracial
disparity, and that while bourgeois sex - whether autocratic, bureaucratic,
democratic, or theocratic - will involve only whites or only blacks or only
coloureds or only Jews (as the case may be), proletarian sex will involve mixed
partners in a sort of interracial transcendentalism, as distinct from monoracial partnerships as colour televisions and/or
computers from monochromatic books and/or magazines.
28. If
the outer light is Hell (noumenal selflessness), then
the inner light is Heaven (noumenal
selfishness). And if the outer darkness
is worldly hell (phenomenal selflessness), then the inner darkness is worldly
heaven (phenomenal selfishness). No less
than the outer darkness stems, as a fall, from the outer light, so the inner
darkness stands as a precondition of the inner light. Without the Father, there can be no
Mother. Conversely, without Christ (the
Son) there can be no Holy Spirit. For
the '
29. Democracy,
being essentially a matter of the inner darkness, is superior to bureaucracy
and autocracy but inferior to theocracy.
Yet if democracy does not contain its own inner light (in the form of
Fascism or, better still, Social Transcendentalism), it certainly allows for an
outer darkness relative to itself, which is Liberalism, and for an outer light
relative to itself, which is Socialism.
Hence while the Conservative Party in
30. Rulers
and leaders are no less antithetical, as soul and spirit, than workers and
players, those wilful and intellectual parallels that correspond to the outer
darkness and to the inner darkness in between the alpha and omega noumenal extremes of autocratic outer light and theocratic
inner light, viz. rulers and leaders, aristocrats and meritocrats,
monarchs and priests. By contrast,
workers and players, corresponding to plutocrats and to technocrats within
their respective bureaucratic and democratic frameworks, are less creatures of
Hell or Heaven than of the world and purgatory, and while the world is closer,
as a fall, to Hell, purgatory is closer, as a rise, to Heaven. Hence rulers and workers hang together on
the autocratic/bureaucratic axis of the Father and the Blessed Virgin, no less
than players and leaders do such on the succeeding democratic/theocratic axis
of Christ and the Holy Spirit, since the former categories are of the superstar
and the star, whereas the latter categories are of the cross and the supercross. Workers
tend to respect rulers, as the Mother respects the Father, while players have
more respect for leaders, as Christ respected the Holy Ghost, i.e. the '
31. Law
is no less superior to science than religion to art, the reason being that,
like religion, law relates to the inner experience as opposed to an outer
investigation/comprehension of such an experience. Thus law is akin to the Father in its autocratic
essence, whereas science is akin to a Satanic fall from the Father which, being
outside, has a particle rather than a wavicle
constitution, the very same constitution, albeit from a contrary atomic
point-of-view, viz. electrons, that art has in relation to the inner experience
of religion, centred in the Holy Ghost.
Consequently while law is alpha and autocratic, religion is omega and
theocratic. Law corresponds to the outer
light, religion to the inner light. The
one is centrifugal, the other centripetal.
Now, obviously, the more inner light there is in the individual or
society, the less place can there be for outer light. The inner excludes the outer, and therefore a
truly theocratic society, granting maximum inner light to each of the individuals
who comprise it, would be beyond the law, beyond in the sense of being more
evolved than is commensurate (through inner and outer darkness) with an
acceptance of and respect for law. Such
an omega-oriented society could not have judges, since they pertain to the
alpha fundamentalism of the outer light (their long wigs symbolic of outer
light), and, besides, there could be no judiciary after the Last Judgement
which, appertaining to the Second Coming, will, in judging judges from the
standpoint of the inner light, find them beneath the theocratic pale. After the Last Judgement, there can be no
judging and therefore no judges! The law
will cease to have any relevance to the religious integrity of the '
32. If
there is a court which, in alpha terms, would be less a thing of the outer
light than of the inner light, the fundamentalist inner light, it could only be
a religious court, such as exists in Islamic and fundamentalist societies. Secular courts, by contrast, are less of the
Creator (or Jehovah, Allah, etc.) than of the Devil, and in relation to
religious courts they should be ascribed a particle rather than a wavicle status ... such as accords with the outer
collectivism of the secular (diabolic) in relation to the inner individualism
of the religious (divine). Thus whereas
religious judges presiding over religious courts will be akin to autocratic
gods, secular judges presiding over secular courts are akin to autocratic
devils, devils who may condemn to hell (prison or death) those over whom they
have been empowered to judge.
33. If
wavicles are individualistic and particles
collectivistic, then wavicles are strong or beautiful
or good or true (depending on the ideological context), and particles weak or ugly
or evil or illusory (depending, once again, on the context). Hence if law is strong, then science is
weak. If aesthetics is beautiful, then
economics is ugly. If ethics is good,
then politics is evil. If religion is
true, then art is false. For what
pertains, as wavicles, to the strong or beautiful or
good or true is individualistic, whereas what pertains, as particles, to the
weak or ugly or evil or false is collectivistic, the former as superior to the
latter as divine virtue to diabolic vice, and thus, albeit in a generalized
sense, religious to secular. Yet, in
reality, the law is no more religious than science is artistic. Religion is solely a matter of the inner light
and therefore pertains to the true, or truth, as opposed to strength. The law, by contrast, is fundamentalist,
since appertaining to the outer light (even the 'inner light' of religious law
is essentially outer when viewed from a truly
religious, or transcendental, standpoint).
Therefore the law is the antithesis of religion, as fundamentalism is
the antithesis of transcendentalism, or science the antithesis of art. Strength (or power) and truth (or awareness)
are as mutually exclusive as alpha and omega, beginning and end, and therefore
it is inconceivable that law can ever be truly religious. On the contrary, it is what is antithetical
to religion and, in its fundamentalist absolutism, the greatest obstacle and
threat to it. Religion (as I believe I
have already made clear) cannot thrive where there is law. Only the autocratic Father
at the expense of the theocratic Holy Ghost. And where there is law there is science, as a
particle shadow to the wavicle outer light, a Satan
to the Father, and science necessarily excludes art
and is its natural enemy, weakness no less antithetical to illusion (falsity)
than strength to truth. Where aesthetics
and economics are concerned, on the other hand, we will be dealing with (wavicle) beauty and (particle) ugliness, worldly virtue and
vice, and we can generalize the former in terms of Catholicism and the latter
in terms of Liberalism, Catholicism no less the most aesthetic form of
'religion' (the Blessed Virgin) ... than Liberalism is the most
economically-biased (laissez-faire capitalism), form of 'politics'. I use quotes for both religion and politics
in regard to the above wavicle and particle
distinctions advisably, since Catholicism is less religious than aesthetic,
less an allegiance to the inner light (of Transcendentalism) than to the outer
darkness (of selfless phenomenality, viz. will), for
whom the Virgin Mary is accordingly the aesthetic focus and wavicle
ideal, whereas Liberalism is less political than economic, less an allegiance
to the inner darkness (of parliamentary democracy) than to the outer darkness,
for which laissez-faire (wilful) capitalism is the economic focus and particle
ideal - the one individualistic and the other collectivistic, the former
co-operative and the latter competitive.
Where ethics and politics are concerned, however, we will of course be
dealing with (wavicle) goodness and (particle) evil,
purgatorial virtue and vice, and the former we can equate with Protestantism
and the latter with Toryism; Protestantism being no
less the most ethical form of 'religion' (Christ) than Toryism
the most democratic form of politics.
Again my quotes are advisable, since Protestantism is less religious
than ethical, less an allegiance to the inner light than to the inner darkness
(of selfish phenomenality, viz. intellect), for which
Christ, or New Testament fundamentalism, will accordingly be the ethical focus
and wavicle ideal, whereas Conservatism is less
economic than parliamentary, less an allegiance to the outer darkness
(Liberalism) than to the inner darkness, for which the selfish phenomenality of intellect-driven materialism will be the
political focus and particle ideal, a necessarily evil ideal which contrasts
with the wavicle goodness of ethical Protestantism
and its love-centred idealism, a goodness no less disposed, in its wavicle individualism, to the pursuit of the general good
... of intellectual humanism ... than parliamentary evil is disposed, in its
particle collectivism, to the pursuit of the particular evil ... of inhuman
materialism, Antichrist against Christ.
Contrasted to which, however, we shall find the (wavicle)
truth of religion and the (particle) illusion of art, omega virtue and vice,
and whereas religion is only properly conceivable in terms of
Transcendentalism, which alone truly pertains to the inner light, art will only
be truly illusory when it, too, is transcendent and conceived in terms which
intimate, through abstract impression (the opposite of abstract expression), of
the Holy Spirit, serving as the handmaiden of true religion. In fact, the word 'handmaiden' is apposite
here, since it seems to me that the particle aspect of life, appertaining to
collective appearances, is inherently feminine, and that women usually have
more respect for art than religion, given their bias for appearances over
essences, the collective (for example the species, the family) over the
individual. It is man, by contrast, who
is most religious or, at any rate, capable of being such, since more attuned,
in his individualistic essence, to the wavicle aspect
of life, which would seem to have a masculine bias. Hence whereas religion is masculine or, more
correctly, supermasculine (transcendental) in its
centripetal spirituality, art will be
comparatively feminine, a 'handmaiden' which paradoxically approaches
the Truth not from the inside, as religious experience, but from the outside,
as artistic appearance, and which is accordingly illusory, the abstract
intimation of Holy Ghost not being commensurate with the Holy Ghost as such
but, at best, a symbol for something which, as Truth, ultimately transcends art
and, thus, illusion. Doubtless, what
applies to religion and art in terms of this masculine/feminine, wavicle/particle dichotomy applies no less to law and
science, or aesthetics and economics, or ethics and politics, so that we may
ascribe to law, aesthetics, and ethics a masculine bias, but to science,
economics, and politics a feminine one, in line with the individual/collective,
virtuous/vicious, divine/diabolic distinction between wavicles
and particles, the former essential and concerned with the general (whether
strength, beauty, good, or [in the case of religion] truth), and the latter
apparent and concerned with the particular (whether weakness, ugliness, evil,
or [in the case of art] illusion), individualism no less generalistic
than collectivism is particularistic, wavicles a
generalized individualism where particles are a collectivized particularism, each particle separate and distinct from the
whole, able to assert itself, if necessary, against the whole, or collective,
in the interests of its own particular bent.
Thus whereas religion, for example, appeals to the
individual through the general truth, art appeals to the collective through the
particular illusion. Religion,
like a man, appeals primarily to the individual, while art, like a woman,
appeals primarily to the collectivity of individuals
who make up a particular society. Art
deceives, whereas religion enlightens.
Art is, to coin a phrase, the Devil's approach to religion, just as
science is the Devil's (particle-biased) approach to law, economics the Devil's
approach to aesthetics, and politics the Devil's approach to ethics. The Devil, whether weak, ugly, evil, or
false, always 'gets it wrong', but it is doubtful that those of us who identify
with God (whether in alpha, worldly, purgatorial, or omega terms) would 'get it
right' if there was no competition 'from below' (in the particle collectivity) to enable us to co-operate more fully with
those of our own kind who are dedicated to the protection and advancement of
one or another of the principal virtues.
34. People
who like other people better than themselves or, rather, their selves ... are
fools compared with those who like their selves above others and who, while
respecting the other's selves, prefer to be in communion with their own
selves. That man is wise who likes his
self above the other, but who puts the other's self above him while rejecting
the other.
35. Despite their overly reductive nature, it can be morally
expedient to cultivate a philosophical understanding of slang words or sexual
epithets like 'cunt' and 'prick', and to use them in
regard to moral evaluations of oneself and others. 'Cunts' are of the
world and 'pricks' tower in lunar intellectuality above it, but there are also
more absolute 'cunts' and 'pricks', what I tend to
regard as 'supercunts' and 'superpricks',
and while the former are of alpha Hell, the latter are of omega Heaven. In fact, one could say that while 'cunts' are realistic and 'pricks' materialistic, 'supercunts' are naturalistic and 'superpricks'
idealistic - a distinction, in effect, between, say, novelists and philosophers
in the one case (that of 'cunts' and 'pricks'), but
dramatists and poets in the other case (that of 'supercunts'
and 'superpricks').
Now the irony of it all is that one remains classifiable in terms of one
or other of these categories whether one relates to the immoral or moral pole
or, indeed, to the amoral middle ground of any given elemental spectrum, that
is to say, irrespective of whether one is proton orientated and emotional,
neutron orientated and intellectual, or electron orientated and spiritual. A poet is still a 'superprick'
at the, as it were, alpha pole of his spectrum, no less than a dramatist is
still a 'supercunt' at the omega pole of his spectrum, the one comparatively dramatic and the other
comparatively poetic. For a poet is a
creature of the inner light, and whether this inner light be bogus, and
fundamentalist, or genuine, and transcendentalist, it will accord with the sort
of gender-oriented slang definition we have been discussing in relation to
idealism, just as the contrary definition used in connection with dramatists,
and by implication drama, has applicability to the outer light, and thus to
naturalism. All we can do, in regard to
the appropriateness of such definitions right across their particular spectrum,
is to distinguish sharply between, say, immoral 'superpricks'
(or rhyming poets) and moral 'superpricks' (or
abstract poets), not forgetting the amoral type of 'superpricks'
(or free-verse poets) in between, the ones whose bent is more intellectual than
either soulful (and emotional) or spiritual (and aware). And the same of course applies to 'supercunts', whether their form of drama be tragic, comic,
or poetic, and to 'cunts' and 'pricks' as well,
taking the latter to embrace novelists and philosophers of one persuasion or
another, whether immoral, amoral, or moral, which is to say of the father, the
son, or the holy ghost relative to their own particular sphere of creativity,
novels being of the terrestrial world no less than philosophy is of the lunar
purgatory that rises, intellectually, above the bodily will and its concern, in
outer darkness, with women and, by implication, sex. For the effective Mother/Son distinction
between the world and purgatory, or fiction and philosophy, is of course one
between the outer darkness (of phenomenal selflessness) and the inner darkness
(of phenomenal selfishness), which corresponds to 'cunts'
and 'pricks' in a wilful/intellectual dichotomy that is sandwiched in-between
the alpha/omega dichotomy, or antithesis, of soul and spirit, as germane to the
outer light of the Father (in noumenal selflessness)
and the inner light of the Holy Spirit (in noumenal
selfishness), dramatic 'supercunts' and poetic 'superpricks'. Hence
while the novelist strives to entertain (like a woman) and the philosopher to
instruct, the dramatist strives to inform and the poet to enlighten. For entertainment is no less antithetical to
instruction ... than information to enlightenment, and whereas entertainment
pertains to worldly will and instruction (education) to purgatorial intellect,
information pertains to diabolic soul and enlightenment to divine spirit. We are entertained by 'cunts'
but instructed by 'pricks', whether negatively or positively or, indeed, in
some neutral way in between. Similarly
we are informed by 'supercunts' but enlightened by 'superpricks', whether negatively and immorally, positively
and morally, or neutrally and amorally.
Entertainment is of the outer darkness, education of the inner darkness,
the former literary and the latter philosophical. Information is of the outer light,
enlightenment (as the name suggests) of the inner light, the former dramatic and
the latter poetic. It is, I have to say,
towards the inner light that evolutionary progress tends, the final
resting-place of evolution being in divine enlightenment, and hence, so far as
literature is concerned, in the poet, though, needless to say, only the most
moral and insightful kind of poet, the one whose inner light shines the
clearest in impressive transcendence of the intellect, the consummate 'superprick' of divine revelation.
36. The
theocratic autocracy of Eastern Fundamentalism (Islam, Judaism, etc.) ... as
opposed to the autocratic theocracy of Eastern Orthodoxy, the bureaucratic
theocracy of Roman Catholicism, the democratic theocracy of Protestantism, and
- hopefully in the future - the theocratic theocracy of Social
Transcendentalism, the true and genuine theocracy of the inner light which, in
contrast to the 'inner light' of Eastern Fundamentalism, is essential and not
apparent, a quality of wavicle electron-electron
attractions rather than, as with Islam, of wavicle
proton-proton reactions (as germane to the central star of the Galaxy). Hence Jehovah and/or Allah
on the one hand, and (successively) the Father, the Mother, the Son, and,
finally, the Holy Spirit on the other - a devolutionary/evolutionary dichotomy
between East and West, Fundamentalism and Transcendentalism, Heathenism and
Christianity.
37. Thus
from the apparent inner light of Eastern Fundamentalism to the essential inner
light of Social (Western) Transcendentalism via the outer light of Eastern
Orthodoxy, the outer darkness of Roman Catholicism, and the inner darkness of
Protestantism, as from Allah to the Holy Spirit (of the de Chardinesque
'Omega Point') via the Father, the Mother, and the Son.
38. In
the 'democratic trinity' of video cassettes, LPs, and audio cassettes, we have
a sort of father, mother, and son of outer light, outer darkness, and inner
darkness (inner light is necessarily absent from democracy), which contrasts
with the outer darkness, inner darkness, and inner light of singles, tape
recorders, and compact discs, corresponding to mother, son, and holy spirit of
the 'bureaucratic trinity' (which necessarily excludes the outer light). Hence whereas one type of disc, viz. LP, is
flanked, in the 'democratic trinity', by two types of tape, viz. video and audio,
one type of tape, viz. tape recorder, is flanked, in the 'bureaucratic trinity'
underneath, by two types of disc, viz. singles and compacts - one hard and two
soft in the former context, two hard and one soft in the latter, with broadly
masculine and feminine implications respectively. Thus not only is the feminine antithetical to
the masculine in terms of a disc/tape dichotomy, with discs and tapes always in
polar positions, but the small disc is antithetical to the small tape, whether
single to video or compact to audio, while the large tape (of the tape
recorder) is antithetical to the large disc (of the LP), where the polarity
will be between inner darkness and outer darkness rather than, as with singles
and videos, either between the outer darkness and the outer light (the one
necessarily excluding the other) or, as with compacts and audios, between the
inner light and the inner darkness (which are likewise mutually
exclusive). In terms of a sexual
analogue, the antithesis between the inner and outer darkness is purely
heterosexual, with female-dominated coitus in the one case (centrist
bureaucratic) and male-dominated coitus in the other case (centrist
democratic), whereas that between the outer darkness (of singles) and the outer
light (of videos) is lesbian in the former case (left bureaucratic) and oral
(cunnilingus) in the latter case (left democratic), in contrast to the
antithesis between the inner light (of compact discs) and the inner darkness
(of audios), which is of fellatio on the one hand (right bureaucratic) and
homosexuality on the other hand (right democratic), the one normally excluding
the other, since homosexuality is no less exclusive of females than lesbianism
of males, and both fellatio and cunnilingus usually reflect a heterosexual
rather than a homosexual bias. Thus
whereas democracy excludes the holy ghost, bureaucracy excludes the father, the
left-wing feminine bias being more for the outer darkness (of lesbianism) than
for the outer light (of film-induced masturbation), while the right-wing
masculine bias is more for the inner darkness (of homosexuality) than for the
inner light (of fellatio). Hence women
are more susceptible than men to the inner light where the
democratic/bureaucratic polarity is concerned, while men are therein more
susceptible than women to the outer light, the former capable (on the
bureaucratic right) of a theocratic bias, the latter susceptible (on the
democratic left) to an autocratic one, with due omega-oriented and
alpha-stemming distinctions between the two.
Clearly, no less than the outer light of autocracy precedes the outer
light of democracy, so the inner light of bureaucracy precedes the inner light
of theocracy, and it is doubtful that the latter could come effectively to pass
if it were not pursued on the basis of an appeal to 'Mother Church' and, by
implication, to right-thinking women.
Such an appeal may have to take a democratic form, but it would be
conducted from a supra-democratic point of view and with the express aim of
eclipsing the inner darkness of democracy by the inner light of theocracy.
39. We
have now established that singles are left-wing bureaucratic and compact discs
right-wing bureaucratic, and therefore neither autocratic (like television) nor
theocratic (like computers), but germane to the bureaucratic middle ground of
feminine worldliness, which stands to autocracy and theocracy as the Blessed
Virgin to the Father and Holy Ghost, and thus under the democratic middle
ground of masculine otherworldliness, with its Christic
associations. This democratic middle
ground is soft where the bureaucracy is hard and hard where it is soft. Cunnilingus is soft in relation to
lesbianism, video tapes soft in relation to singles. The democratic Left is soft, the bureaucratic
Left hard. Conversely, fellatio is hard
in relation to homosexuality, compact discs hard in relation to audio
tapes. The bureaucratic Right is hard,
the democratic Right soft. But
male-dominated heterosexuality is hard in relation to female-dominated
heterosexuality, LPs hard in relation to the tapes of tape-recorders. The democratic Centre is hard, the
bureaucratic Centre soft. Hard and soft
form a polarity, whether reactive or attractive, exclusive or complementary. The outer darkness is hard, the inner
darkness soft. The outer light is soft,
the inner light hard - at least in their democratic and bureaucratic
manifestations respectively. For in
their autocratic and theocratic manifestations, the outer light is hard and the
inner light soft, particles and wavicles of an
apparent/essential dichotomy, the former damned and the latter saved, a
Devil/God distinction between the autocratic Father (not to be confounded with
the 'theocratic' Jehovah or Allah ... of, for example, cinema films) and the
theocratic Holy Spirit. Hence whereas
the democratic outer light is morally superior to the autocratic outer light,
as video to television, or the 'father' (side) of the Son to the Father per se, so the bureaucratic inner light
is morally inferior to the theocratic inner light, as compact discs to computer
software, or the 'holy ghost' of the Mother to the Holy Ghost per se. Yet no less than the soft outer light of
left-wing democracy stems from the hard outer light of autocracy ... so the
soft inner light of theocracy must stem from the hard inner light of right-wing
bureaucracy, compact floppy discs from compact discs no less than videos from
television films ... as the continuity of moral progress is maintained.
40. In
regard to British democracy, the Labour Party, being left wing traditionally,
corresponds to the soft outer light (of Social Democracy), the Liberal
Democrats, being centrist, correspond to the hard outer darkness (of
Liberalism), and the Tories, being right wing, correspond to the soft inner
darkness (of Conservatism). Put
sexually, one could argue that cunnilingus has a left-wing correspondence,
male-dominated coitus a centrist correspondence, and homosexuality a right-wing
correspondence, though it is doubtful that very many politicians adhere too
strictly (if at all) to the sort of sexual correlations which can logically be
inferred to exist between a given type of politics and its corresponding sexual
orientation. But one would expect to
find more homosexuals in the Tory Party than in either of the other main
parties, given the correlation which does indeed exist between Conservatism and
the inner darkness on the one hand, and between the inner darkness and
homosexuality on the other. In fact, so
acute is the correlation between democracy and the inner darkness ... that the
Conservatives, whatever their sexual persuasions may individually happen to be,
have good reason to consider themselves the most democratic, or parliamentary,
of the parties and, in some sense, the quintessence of British democracy. The Labour Party, by contrast, is
fundamentally a party of the outer light relative to democracy (soft) and is
therefore inherently autocratic, while the Liberal Democrats are of the outer
darkness relative to democracy (hard) and are therefore inherently
bureaucratic, the plurality of a mature democracy deriving, in large part, from
the transmutation of autocratic and bureaucratic precedents in line with
democratic progress and their subordination to the parliamentary will, which in
Britain, at any rate, is overwhelmingly Tory.
Thus while democracy is preferable to autocracy or bureaucracy, since
relative to the inner darkness rather than to the outer light or the outer
darkness, it cannot ignore or completely transcend autocracy and bureaucracy,
since both the outer light and the outer darkness are ever factors to be
reckoned with from the viewpoint of the inner darkness, and so autocracy and
bureaucracy, the Left and the Centre, are made accessible to the democratic
will, and those who prefer the outer light or darkness to the inner darkness,
soul or will to intellect, can vote accordingly. Not to mention, in this age of bureaucratic
ascendancy, for the outer darkness, relative to bureaucracy (hard), of
Socialism, or for the inner darkness, relative to bureaucracy (soft), of
Ecology, or for the inner light, relative to bureaucracy (hard), of Feminism,
the type of light that would seem to be a precondition of a soft inner light
and thus, by implication, the ascendancy of superhuman theocracy under the
messianic aegis of the Second Coming, the personification on earth of the Holy
Ghost and effective embodiment, in consequence, of a supermasculine
will, such that alone accords with the
most noumenal subjectivity.
41. One
can and should distinguish, where computers are concerned, between the 'father'
of the Holy Ghost in war games, the 'mother' of the Holy Ghost in computer
porn, the 'son' of the Holy Ghost in conceptual, or literary, computing, i.e.
poetry and philosophy, and the 'holy spirit' of the Holy Ghost, viz. the inner
(perceptual) light of graphics, whether in art or with regard to
photography. For there is a sense in
which, within the overall inner-light context of computing, games are relative
to the outer light (of the soul), pornography is relative to the outer darkness
(of the flesh), conceptual literature is relative to the inner darkness (of the
intellect), and perceptual images are relative to the inner light (of the
spirit). Hence the medium of the Holy
Ghost contains subdivisions relative to the father, the mother, the son, and
the holy spirit within itself, and we can know and
judge people accordingly. Yet, that
said, the 'father' of the Holy Ghost, i.e. computer games, is still somehow
morally and ideologically preferable to, say, the 'holy ghost' of the Father,
i.e. to satellite television. For, of
course, television is of the Father no less than computers are of the Holy
Ghost, and while the outer light is most outer in conventional relayed
television, there is a sense in which we have an outer darkness relative to the
Father in pay and/or cable television, an inner darkness relative to the Father
in teletext television (a conceptual focus), and an
inner light relative to the Father in satellite television, which requires a
centralized dish to pick up the signals being relayed from outer space. On the other hand, it is my view that films
on laser disc pertain not to the Father but to the Mother, i.e. to bureaucracy
rather than to autocracy, and are thus definable in terms of the inner light of
the Mother, the 'holy ghost' of the Mother, a light (necessarily hard in
relation to disc) which forms a contrast with the (soft) outer light of the
Son, viz. videos in relation to democracy, and stands to video as fellatio to
cunnilingus in oral sex, both kinds of sex necessarily having an optical bias
which would seem to have its filmic parallel in laser disc and video tape
respectively.
42. If
one were asked to define the four main racial groupings on this planet, viz.
blacks, whites, yellows, and coloureds, in terms of a cultural relation,
necessarily generalized, to either the outer darkness of worldly will, the
inner darkness of purgatorial intellect, the outer light of diabolic soul, or
the inner light of divine spirit, viz. earth, water, fire, and air, my
definition would be as follows: blacks in relation to the outer darkness
(earth) of worldly will; whites in relation to the inner darkness (water) of
purgatorial intellect; yellows in relation to the outer light (fire) of
diabolic soul; and coloureds (including Jews) in relation to the inner light
(air) of divine spirit. Hence I would
contend that while blacks and whites, corresponding to will and intellect,
formed a worldly/purgatorial antithesis between the earthy outer darkness and
the lunar inner darkness, yellows and coloureds, corresponding, by contrast, to
soul and spirit, formed a diabolic/divine antithesis between the solar outer
light and the stellar inner light. Thus
whereas the black/white antithesis is effectively between bureaucratic realism
and democratic materialism, the yellow/coloured antithesis is between
autocratic naturalism and theocratic idealism.
Consequently it is my view that, since history proceeds from the outer
light to the inner light via the outer and inner darkness of worldly phenomenality, coloureds are the race which most
approximate to a divine ideal and yellows the race most approximating, by
contrast, to a diabolic one, with blacks and whites coming in-between, almost
as though they were of the Virgin and Christ respectively, rather than of
either the Father (yellows) or the Holy Spirit (coloureds). In fact, if one were to define the races in
hierarchical order, one would have to put blacks and whites at the bottom and
yellows and coloureds at the top, bearing in mind that earth and water,
corresponding to the planetary and the lunar, are beneath fire and light,
corresponding to the solar and the stellar, in the cosmic hierarchy. However that may be, it is my firm conviction
that the solution, from a divine standpoint, to the racial plurality of this
planet, with its ethnic liberalism, is the gradual evolution of human life
towards a coloured mean in which the inner light will take considerable
precedence over everything else. Whether
this comes to pass by the fusion of blacks and whites or by yellows mating with
coloureds or, indeed, by some more complex and variegated cross-fertilization,
the ideal human type for the future transcendental civilization will be
coloured, and he will be the theocratic superman (generically speaking) from whom
a rich harvest of inner light can be gleaned.
43. It
seems to me that whereas Rugby League and Rugby Union stand either side of
Association Football like video and audio tapes flanking LPs, American
so-called football stands in a bureaucratic relationship to British football
(both soccer and rugby) that places it in an analogous position to compact
discs, given the bureaucratic nature of compact discs vis-à-vis both tapes and
LPs. Hence while football is arguably
democratic, whether left wing in the case of Rugby League, centrist in the case
of Association Football, or right wing in the case of Rugby Union, American
football (Gridiron) is bureaucratic in its outdoor manifestation but, so I
contend, theocratic in its indoor manifestation, where it would be more
feasible to draw a parallel with compact floppy discs ... in relation to a more
evolved context. American football
therefore transcends British football both bureaucratically (hard inner light)
and theocratically (soft inner light), whereas the latter,
divisible into soccer and rugby, remains democratic, if unconsciously so, and
thus split between its contending options - Rugby League in competition with
Rugby Union for the soft vote (between the outer light and the inner darkness
relative to democracy), Association Football stuck in-between the two in a
centrist position (of the outer darkness relative to democracy), which
effectively leaves it in competition with itself for the hard vote, an LP in
between opposing types of tapes (video and audio). Hence whereas a Labour parallel could be
construed for Rugby League and a Tory parallel for Rugby Union, Association
Football offers itself to a Liberal parallel in view of its hard essence (the
ball round and therefore particle suggesting) in relation to the outer darkness
of worldly will, the crossbar confirming this hardness in contrast to the open
posts of rugby, both league and union; the use of boots and head a further
indication of this particle hardness, in contrast to the hand bias of rugby for
a ball which, unlike its football counterpart, is elongated in deference to the
soft, wavicle-suggesting essence of rugby, a game
more traditionally suited to gentlemen - at any rate, where Rugby Union is
concerned.
44. Evaluating
people in terms of race (racism) is fundamentally autocratic; evaluating them
in terms of sex (sexism) is bureaucratic; evaluating them in terms of class (classism) is democratic; and evaluating them in terms of
ideology (transcendentalism) is theocratic.
Hence from alpha to omega, with worldly and purgatorial modes of
phenomenal evaluation (sex and class) coming in-between, neither of which could
have much applicability to either an autocratic or a theocratic society, where
race or ideology would be the principal modes of human evaluation, race,
however, being as irrelevant to a theocratic society as ideology to an
autocratic one.
45. If
the blood is naturalistic because corresponding to fire/heat, then the flesh is
realistic because of its correspondence to earth/darkness. And if the bones are naturalistic because
corresponding to water/coldness, then hair is idealistic because of its
correspondence to air/light. Hence a
sort of bodily parallel to our familiar autocratic - bureaucratic - democratic
- (and) theocratic options, with blood having an autocratic correspondence, the
flesh a bureaucratic correspondence, the bones a democratic correspondence, and
hair a theocratic correspondence.
Furthermore, it will not have escaped one's attention that where there
is blood, there are veins; and that where there is flesh, there are muscles;
and that where there are bones, there is marrow; and that where there is hair,
there are follicles. In fact, without
veins there would be no blood, without muscles no flesh, without marrow no bones,
and without follicles no hair. The
quantitative and the qualitative, the particle and the wavicle,
complement each other in the ongoing dichotomy of organic evolution. Blood and hair are the alpha and omega of the
body, with flesh and bones coming in-between, like the Virgin and the Son
between the Father and the Holy Spirit, the flesh closer to the blood, bones
closer to hair (especially in the head, where most hair is usually to be
found). Now just as an alpha-stemming
autocratic person will be emotional and soulful, with a high blood-pressure, so
an omega-oriented theocratic person will be aware and spiritual, with a lot of
hair. In fact, the chances are that the
autocratic type of person will have very little hair, either because he is
balding, if not bald, or because he prefers to wear it short, whereas the
theocratic type of person will have hair in abundance, probably long and in a
ponytail. The chances are, if white,
that he will be pale where the autocratic type is florid; though the skin is
not always a good indication of a person's disposition, especially where
coloured people are concerned. Suffice
it to say that where theocracy has flourished, as in the Asian Orient
traditionally, long hair will be the norm, in contrast to those places, including
46. It
could be argued that whereas blood is the proton-wavicle
precondition of proton-particle veins, muscles are the atomic-particle
precondition of atomic-wavicle flesh. Similarly, whereas marrow is the neutron-wavicle precondition of neutron-particle bones, follicle
cells are the electron-particle precondition of electron-wavicle
hair, with its electrostatic properties.
Hence from a theocratic autocracy to an autocratic/democratic autocracy
in the case of blood/veins; from a bureaucratic autocracy to a theocratic
bureaucracy in the case of muscles/ flesh; from a theocratic democracy to an
autocratic/democratic democracy in the case of marrow/bones; and from a
bureaucratic democracy to a democratic theocracy in the case of follicles/hair.
47. The
theocratic autocracy of Marxism; the autocratic autocracy of Leninism
(Bolshevism); the democratic autocracy of Khruschevism
(Communism); the bureaucratic autocracy of Gorbachevism
(Perestroika/Glasnost);
but the autocratic bureaucracy of Yeltsinism, and
hence the end of Communism and the beginning of Socialism conceived in regard
to bureaucracy. For it is bureaucracy,
it seems to me, that is truly of the People and therefore germane to a People's
democracy. Now after or together with
autocratic bureaucracy there is only the democratic bureaucracy of Ecology and
the bureaucratic bureaucracy of Feminism, in contrast to the properly
democratic alternatives in a bourgeois, or parliamentary, democracy above,
which is less a thing of the world than, in a manner of speaking, the moon,
less worldly than purgatorial, and therefore related not to bodily will but to
cerebral intellect. Hence bourgeois
democracy is not only parliamentary rather than 'republican'; it is lunar
rather than planetary, closely aligned with a Protestant as opposed to a
Catholic tradition, and consequently intellectual as opposed to wilful. It ranges from the autocratic democracy of
the Democratic-Socialist Left to the democratic democracy of the Conservative
Right via the bureaucratic democracy of the Liberal Centre, that is to say from
state ownership and control to free enterprise and private ownership via a
public/private compromise between state and citizen, government (whether
central or local) and personal freedom.
Yet the democratic democracy of the Conservative Party is not the means
to the '
48. A
Catholic republic, like Eire, could not but effectively be a People's
democracy, i.e. a bureaucratic plurality of worldly will aligned with and to
some extent stemming from a religious tradition (Roman Catholicism) rooted in
the Blessed Virgin. On the other hand, a
parliamentary democracy, like
49. If
video tapes, LPs, and audio tapes correspond to the democratic, and singles,
tape-recorder tapes, and compact discs to the bureaucratic, then it seems to me
that one can infer a literary/philosophical distinction between records and
tapes, since the philosophical is more germane to democracy than to bureaucracy
on account of its intellectual essence, and tapes (in the forms of video and
audio) predominate over records in the democratic context, in contrast to the
predominance of records (in the forms of singles and compact discs) over tapes
in the bureaucratic context beneath, the context, so I shall argue, more
germane to literature (fiction), with its wilful associations, than to
philosophy. Hence while some literature,
corresponding to LPs, is democratic, and some philosophy, corresponding to
tape-recorder tapes, bureaucratic, most philosophy is democratic and most
literature bureaucratic. The question
then arises in relation, firstly, to philosophy: which philosophy is democratic
and which bureaucratic? And I believe
the question can be answered with regard to a democratic distinction, on the
one hand, between (left-wing) academic philosophy, corresponding to the outer
light of video tapes, and (right-wing) metaphysical philosophy, corresponding
to the inner darkness of audio tapes, with a further distinction, on the other
hand, between each of these and the bureaucratic essence of applied, or
practical, philosophy, corresponding to the inner darkness of tape-recorder
tapes - the former options intellectual and the latter wilful. Which brings us to the same question in
relation to literature - namely which literature is democratic and which
bureaucratic? And that, too, can be
answered by reference to a distinction between philosophic literature,
corresponding to the outer darkness of LPs, on the one hand, and (left-wing)
dramatic, or adventure, literature, corresponding to the outer darkness of
singles, and (right-wing) poetic literature, corresponding to the inner light
of compact discs, on the other hand, a hand rather more bureaucratic than
democratic on account of the wilful essence of literature in relation,
primarily, to the outer darkness and, most especially, the soft outer darkness
of the feminine world. Thus while philosophy
is predominantly a democratic art form, it is bureaucratic in its applied
mould. Conversely, while literature is
predominantly a bureaucratic art form, it is democratic in its philosophical
mould. The exception does not prove the
rule so much as negate it. Philosophic literature, à la Aldous
Huxley, is no less the democratic exception than practical philosophy, à la John Cowper Powys, the bureaucratic exception. Yet while philosophic literature may arguably
be morally superior to applied philosophy and even to dramatic literature, of
which adventure stories should be regarded as the most representative category,
it can only be morally inferior to poetic literature, since it is this which is
contiguous with poetry and thus with that which transcends both literature and
philosophy as it expands towards spiritual infinity. Metaphysical philosophy, or antiphilosophy, may be 'the best of a bad job', on account
of its preoccupation with intellectual or spiritual matters, but it does not
and cannot lead anywhere, least of all to poetry, the greatest of the literary
arts, which requires not a philosophical but a fictional precondition, the
precondition of poetic literature in an aesthetic intimation of Truth, whose
focus is the hard inner light of, for example, psychedelic experience.
50. The
theocratic autocracy of cinema film; the autocratic autocracy of portable
television; the democratic autocracy of standard television; the bureaucratic
autocracy of portable radio; the autocratic bureaucracy of singles; the
democratic bureaucracy of standard radio; the bureaucratic bureaucracy of tape
recorders and/or double-decker tapes; the theocratic bureaucracy of
compact-disc players; the bureaucratic theocracy of portable compact-disc
players; the democratic theocracy of standard computers; the autocratic
theocracy of portable computers; the theocratic theocracy of computer head-sets
(virtual reality). As
against the autocratic democracy of video recorders; the bureaucratic democracy
of record-players and/or LPs; the democratic democracy of radio-cassette
players; the theocratic democracy of portable cassette players. Hence a devolution from alpha to the world,
and an evolution from the world to omega, with the lunar purgatory (of the
democratic options) coming in-between as a materialistic transcendentalism
which exists in isolation from both alpha and omega, while constituting a sort
of negative pole to the world. Whereas
the theocratic democracy of personal cassette-players is an extreme right-wing
dead-end, the theocratic bureaucracy of compact-disc players is contiguous with
the bureaucratic theocracy of personal compact-disc players, which extend the
hard inner light towards the soft inner light (in the democratic theocracy) of
standard computers, and hence a Social
Transcendentalist equivalence which can only be transcended through the
autocratic theocracy and theocratic theocracy of a Super-transcendentalist
equivalence, as germane to portable computers and computer head-sets.
